Is it alright if I don't evolve my language?

[Informer]

I constantly see people talking about evolving their languages and while I will probably make an evolved language later, I'm not sure if I want to do all that with my current project but it I'm not sure if it would still turn out well if I don't. What should I do? Is there anything extra I should do if I skip that step or anything I should be extra aware of?

[Ahzoh]

Yes. A written work about a language is just a snapshot in time, after all. A language can be relatively stable for long periods of time with very few or no changes. Maybe not a few thousand years, but a few hundred for sure.

Frankly, the more you learn about sound, semantic, and grammatical changes, the more you kind of incorporate change into your language without much thinking of it at all.

[conlang-creature]

Realistically, do whatever you want with your language, it's yours. Do what you think is best, or get some advice on what works best. If that's what you're asking then:
As to whether it would benefit your project, I don't know. Language evolution can help naturalism, but it isn't necessary (probably not the best example, but you can tell Japanese is natural without needing to know where it came from). But that's only if that's one of your goals.
Personally, I don't think there would be any extra steps, or what steps you could add. It depends on what you want to end up with.

Basically, language creation is more of an art then a science, do what you want, that's the fun of creation. Good luck with your projects!

[Dormouse559]

Part of this depends on what kind of conlang you want to make. As a general matter, developing the language’s history is not strictly necessary. It can be very helpful if you are making a naturalistic conlang, one that looks as if it emerged organically in the way natural languages do. Of course, that’s because doing so mimics the natural processes we’ve observed. Evolution may not be a relevant consideration if you have goals other than naturalism; maybe you just want the conlang to sound good to you, or you want to explore a certain philosophy through language.

But in the end, every conlanger draws some kind of line in the past where the language’s history “begins,” because theoretically, you could work backward forever and we are mortal creatures with only so much time. The arbitrary starting point can be 10,000 years ago or 10 years ago, and it can move based on how your interests change.

[Informer]

When I really think about it, I'm not sure this conlang even should be crazy naturalistic in the first place just because of the fact that its only spoken by a relatively small number of immortal beings (I haven't decided how many yet but it certainly won't break 300) so while there would be change eventually it'd probably stay mostly the same. Of course I still want it to make sense and be practical for the most part, but this helped me sort out my goals a bit more.

[sangi39]

I'm going to steal my reply to a similar question posted over in "Conlangs" on Facebook:

"I can't imagine it's any sort of "sin", no, or even a bad thing. As long as you're happy with the language, and you think it all makes sense the way it is, that's the main thing

Personally, I don't think a conlang *has* to be "evolved" (beginning with a proto-language and working forward). That *can* help with things like throwing in irregularities and "interesting little features here and there", but I don't think it's *necessary* to "evolve" a conlang to do that. As some feature feels like it makes sense, it's fine

Like, is there a diachronic reason Russian throws /l/ into /splʲu/ where it doesn't appear in /spʲiʂ/? Absolutely there is, but it's also just a synchronic part of the language that speakers have learned as a pattern in the language (like basically zero speaking Russian are going "right, I have to apply this rule here because the rule resulted from this particular change). Same for English "man" vs. "men". Historical product of i-mutation, but as far as anyone who just speaks English, it's a quirk that just is

The same will likely end up being true for your conlang. Some people might see a feature and think "I wonder why that feature is there", but for anyone just reading the conlang in, say, a work of fiction, and maybe wants to learn it, they'll just see it as some rule to get used to""


With a similar reply here to a similar discussion specifically about diachronics and triconsonantal languages which can basically be summed up as "it can help fill the language out, but you don't need to "evolve" the language"


As others have said, whatever process works for you, to get your conlang to a point that you like, is pretty much good enough


(I swear we've had this discussion before on the CBB, but I can't seem to find it (so it's probably over on the ZBB), but it seems that the current trend towards "diachronic" conlanging has come about, in part, because of people like David J. Peterson pushing it as a "requirement" for a "good" conlang when, sure, it can be a benefit, but not a necessity)

[Salmoneus]

I agree with everything Dormouse and Sangi said.

Within the naturalistic school of conlanging (conlanging that aims at producing conlangs that look like real human languages), I think diachronics (evolution of the language through stages) serves at least five purposes:

- it's an easy way to produce the sorts of irregularities and complex patterns that are found in real languages (because it's how real languages get those things). Real-looking complexity can be produced without diachronics, but, counterintuitively, it's actually probably harder

- it's a way to cheat the limits of your creativity. It can result in features of your conlang that you personally would never have thought to put there, but that evolve unintentionally from your starting point and your evolutionary rules. Not only can that make the final product more creative, but it can work as a practical tool for inspiration when you don't know what you want to do - diachronics can make suggestions, and you can then either accept them, or change something to avoid them (with those changes then having their own consequences, and so on).

- it's both a defence and a magic trick. It lets you put strange features into your conlang that provoke casual observers to go "huh, THAT doesn't look realistic!"... to which you can say "but see the appendix on diachronics" and they go "ooohh, I get it now, that DOES seem like a realistic development now that you put it like that, I get it now!". I mean, I don't know if that actual conversation has ever actually happened, but it could in theory, which is both reassuring and satisfying to know, as the creator

- it can be a part of the 'finished' product. Real languages are diachronic. So if you want to imitate real languages, including diachrony not just makes the 'end state' language more realistic but creates a total package (one language at several stages in time) that is richer and more similar to how human languages actually work. That is, earlier stages aren't necessarily just a working tool to help make the final stage, but can themselves be part of the work itself.

- it's an easy way to create multiple languages. Once you have the diachronic framework for one, you can make more - parent languages, daughter languages, and in particular sister languages. This both lets you make more languages more quickly (in theory) and lets you create a special thing that occurs in real life - a family of related languages, which can be a richer creation than just a series of unrelated languages, because you can play with patterns between languages. Similarly, diachronics lets you have more realistic borrowing and influence between languages.

- a lot of conlanging occurs in the framework of conworlding - some idea of who speaks the language and where and when. Diachronics strengthens conworlding because it lets you have as much language as you have history. Without language evolution, you end up with a continuous history of your culture, but only a momentary snapshot of their language. Diachronics lets you, for instance, label historical maps with names that would have been used at that time, rather than modern ones.


--------------


However, while this all means, I think, that naturalistic conlanging is inherently limiting if you DON'T incorporate at least some ideas of evolution, that's not necessarily a problem depending on the purpose of a certain language (maybe a snapshot is all you need for a certain minor language - or all you have time for).

And more importantly, it says nothing about NON-naturalistic conlanging.

[Salmoneus]

I'd also like to add: it's possible to have non-naturalistic diachronics as well.

Tolkien's languages, for instance, strictly speaking have non-naturalistic diachronics, despite the end result being largely naturalistic. This is because his elves have considerably more conscious control over their language than humans do, and hence have evolved it in ways that human languages don't evolve. Humans don't (extreme in really bizarre cases) look at their language and just decide to change it in a certain way - but elves can.

[in Tolkien's case, it's not VERY non-naturalistic, so far as we can see, but it's important to bear in mind).

This could certainly be the case with a language created and maintained by bored gods. They could just get together one morning and decide to flip all verbs backward, etc.

------


I'd also say: languages with few speakers can actually evolve faster. It's languages with lots of speakers that are more conservative, because it's harder to persuade everyone to change. With only a few hundred speakers, new fashions (which is ultimately what change is) could be created and adopted very quickly.

[Informer]

I'd also like to add: it's possible to have non-naturalistic diachronics as well.

Tolkien's languages, for instance, strictly speaking have non-naturalistic diachronics, despite the end result being largely naturalistic. This is because his elves have considerably more conscious control over their language than humans do, and hence have evolved it in ways that human languages don't evolve. Humans don't (extreme in really bizarre cases) look at their language and just decide to change it in a certain way - but elves can.

[in Tolkien's case, it's not VERY non-naturalistic, so far as we can see, but it's important to bear in mind).

This could certainly be the case with a language created and maintained by bored gods. They could just get together one morning and decide to flip all verbs backward, etc.

------


I'd also say: languages with few speakers can actually evolve faster. It's languages with lots of speakers that are more conservative, because it's harder to persuade everyone to change. With only a few hundred speakers, new fashions (which is ultimately what change is) could be created and adopted very quickly.

I didn't know any of that but now that I think about it, it really makes sense. Also earlier I had assumed smaller populations would probably have less change because theres not enough to lose track of things but I hadn't considered the increased ease for things catching on, thanks for pointing it out. Do any of yall know of good resources besides the appendices themselves to check out how he evolved his differently? That could be a good guide/inspiration for my current one, and I'll probably evolve the other ones in that world normally.